Senate rejects balanced budget plans

A balanced budget amendment failed in the Republican-led House last month. On Wednesday, the Democratic Senate made clear it wouldn’t fly there either.

The Senate defeated rival Republican and Democratic proposals, fulfilling a requirement from this summer’s debt-limit law that both houses vote this year on a constitutional amendment forcing the government to balance its budget.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The Republican plan, authored by the Senate Finance Committee’s top Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, failed on a straight party-line 47-53 vote, falling 20 votes shy of the two-thirds threshold required to change the Constitution. The entire GOP Conference backed the amendment, while Democrats were united in their opposition.

The Democratic plan, authored by Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, was defeated by a wider margin — on a 21-79 vote — largely because most Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, opposed the idea of such an amendment. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) joined 20 Democrats, several facing tough reelections next year, in voting “yes.”

Even if an amendment had been passed by Congress, it still would have needed to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. The White House opposed both proposals, stating that a constitutional amendment wasn’t needed “to do the job of restoring fiscal discipline.”

“The president has proposed a plan that cuts the deficit by $4 trillion, including the deficit reduction already locked in by the Budget Control Act, and the administration is committed to working with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to achieve real deficit reduction,” the White House said in a Statement of Administration Policy.

But with the nation’s debt now topping $15 trillion, Republicans have spent the past year pressing for a balanced budget amendment, similar to the one that cleared the House and fell one vote shy of passing the Senate 15 years ago.

“If spending were a drug, Congress would be an addict,” Hatch said in a floor speech before the votes. “An addict ignores the evidence and denies he has a problem. An addict claims over and over that he can stop his addictive behavior any time he wants. But like a real addict, Congress cannot kick the habit on its own. Congress needs help.”

The Hatch plan would have required Congress to balance its budget each year unless two-thirds of members in both chambers agreed to a deficit. It also called for an 18 percent spending cap and a supermajority in both houses to hike taxes or raise the debt limit. There are some exceptions for running a deficit during times of war.

The Udall alternative would have required a balanced budget each year unless three-fifths of members in both chambers voted to waive it for national emergencies. It also could be waived during a military conflict. But it would have barred Congress from providing income tax breaks for millionaires or tapping into the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget.

Democrats charged that the GOP plan was overreaching, while Republicans said the Democratic plan didn’t go far enough.

“The Democratic alternative allows Congress to continue doing exactly what has caused this crisis in the first place,” Hatch said. “It allows members of Congress committed to a tax-and-spend philosophy to continue sending taxpayer dollars to special interests at the expense of the general fiscal health of this country.

“A so-called solution that continues to enable out-of-control spending is no solution at all,” he said.

Following Hatch on the floor, Udall shot back that the GOP plan provided “unrealistic limitations” on the government that could harm worker retirement accounts, undermine national defense and protect special interest tax breaks.

Hatch’s proposal “would turn our Constitution into a document that protects every special tax deal that has been successfully lobbied for over the years,” Udall said. “That is not what our constituents – hard working Americans – expect from a balanced budget amendment.”

Among those who voted for the Udall plan were a handful of vulnerable 2012 Democrats: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Jon Tester of Montana.

Everyone in Congress wants to "go on record" in favor of a balanced budget (sometime in the future), but no one wants to raise taxes right now to pay for it or cut the defense budget right now to pay for it or even gut Social Security or Medicare right now to pay for it.

"Balanced budget" amendments and "pay as you go" resolutions have a long history in Congress as BS political theatre and posing that get disregarded as soon as it's convenient.

Actions speak louder than words: President Bill Clinton did not support a constitutional amendment, but in his 1992 campaign he called for balancing the budget through ordinary fiscal policy. He came into office facing a large deficit from the Bush administration. Clinton signed into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which attacked the deficit by raising taxes. Beginning with the 1998 budget year, during his second term, the country ran a yearly budget surplus through 2001.

So the only Dems that support fiscal responsibility in the Senate are those up for re-election. That means they will be against it after the election. Two faced politicians are a cancer on this nation and both parties are full of them.

A balanced budget amendment is a JOKE the way it was crafted. The Dem plan was better as it at least allows the government to raise revenue to match its spending. What we need now is more jobs and hence more revenue. Fighting on the budget is like fighting the symptoms of a serious illness. Besides, we had a balanced budget towards the end of Clinton years without one.

Naturally Dems are opposed to balancing the budget, they're the ones reigning over the largest rate of debt increase in the history of the United States! I really don't understand why some Dems are opposed to balancing the budget: all they do is cite media talking points about the positions of both sides and clearly have not researched the same positions from the other side. We literally can't afford more of Obama. The leftist media doesn't admit this, but the national debt has accelerated at an unprecendented rate under Obama, and it wasn't pretty to start with. This doesn't even count the fact that things like Obamacare won't add into the total debt until all parts of the law go into effect, and you can count on the fact that it will be much more expensive than projected, just like any other government program. To top off the horrible debt, all branches of the federal government get an automatic 10% increase in budget each year, based upon spending of the previous year. This is since the 70's. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize this is unsustainable growth and will quickly turn us into the EU. To top it off, so many politicians - on both sides- are guilty of crony-capitalism with large campaign contributions from tax-exempt corporations. Not to mention Obama wasting billions of taxpayer dollars with bogus 'green' jobs with bogus 'green' products like Solyndra. Sure, Democrats can't find a place to cut back. They don't want to give up any power of the purse, and they admit in not as many words that socialism is the end goal. If they mean shared debt burden and shared economic depression, they're sure headed the right way.

Contrary to the understanding of those 'standing with the 99%,' Washington has no intention of fixing any problems within Wall Street - they've been in bed with them (on both sides) for generations, and have rigged things in the personal favor of their insider trading and political donors in the forms of tax exemption and government money. We absolutely need to look for politicians - on both sides- who recognize the culture of corruption in Washington bringing us headlong into financial crisis, and who have the character to withstand Washington's corruption and change things for the citizens of the country. We shouldn't be distracted by the partisan bickering in Washington and be partisan ourselves, that will hardly help the problem.

It never ceases to amaze me how some Democrats will just shout the same talking points over and over without looking at facts, and especially without looking at both sides of an argument. There is plenty of flip-flopping and corruption with Democrats too. Partisanship causes blindness on both sides. You've got to read both sides anymore to get a good idea of what's really going on, because both sides leave stuff out. The liberal media does count on its followers being mind-numbed enough to not think for themselves, however.... It is your duty to be a well-informed voter, not a brainwashed and partisan voter. I'll go even further: to really understand the conservative movement, you've got to listen to (or read) Rush Limbaugh for at least a couple weeks. The 'conservative' media isn't always.

But with the nation’s debt now topping $15 trillion, Republicans have spent the past year pressing for a balanced budget amendment, similar to the one that cleared the House and fell one vote shy of passing the Senate 15 years ago.

Thanks for the wasted year GOP. Can we move on for the country's sake. Where are the jobs? You are robbing Peter to pay Paul now. Taxcuts equal spending. You are trying to cut money for debts made years ago. You are running out of borrow and spend ideas. Reagan and Clinton realized they had to raise taxes to move the country forward. When will you?

Cutting the spending ONLY addresses the deficit. How do you pay down the debt and help with job creation without additional money?

Yet again, the pols (both sides) put their BS in front of the country. You people who think they would do their job and balance the budget on their own are either naive or plain stupid. It's finally time for a constitutional convention to pass the balanced budget AND term limits.

An idea whose time has come might be for Republicans to agree to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 in return for a balanced budget amandment. Propose that to the Democrats and watch them scurry about?

If Democrats were ever to agree to balance the budget, they could never get elected again by using our grand kids' loans to by voters. The only way it will ever happen is if they are thrown out... every single one of them.

A balanced budget amendment would be terrible public policy. It is absolutely baffling that there's anyone out there who fails economics so badly that they think it would be helpful.

There is one group of people out there who always say that a balanced budget amendment would be bad, but the conservatives never listen to them. That group of people is American economists. It frustrates me that conservatives ignore them whenever they don't say with the Republican sheep want to hear.

How is it that Republican Party representatives have been able to successfully blame their spending habits on the Democratic Party representatives? Two wars without raising taxes, was allowed by a Republican controlled Congress.

An idea whose time has come might be for Republicans to agree to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 in return for a balanced budget amandment. Propose that to the Democrats and watch them scurry about?

No matter who you raise taxes on, or where you cut, a balanaced budget amendment is just plain dumb.

This will be an interesting subject WHEN ALL THE POLITICIANS ARE REPLACED in the fall. What business can survive without a budget??? The Politicians want to be able to spend on their PET PROJECTS without being accountable. Like shrimp on treadmill.